Listening to Others' Opinions? Ugh, As If!!
We all know that feeling when someone shares their (unwanted) opinion with us that goes against our beliefs, making us rather uneasy and angry inside. We hate it! Our beliefs are being challenged and it is killing us to not fight back and express what we think is right.
Yes....that's the one ↑. Eventually, we crack, we speak up, and we relieve all of that negative tension that has been brewing inside of us.
Growing up in America, we have become familiar with the myriad of customs, traditions, and tendencies which combine to make the American culture what it is. Of those tendencies, we are especially familiar with our tendency to argue. We gladly argue any issue, whether it be miniscule or world-wide, because of our hard-headed nature which makes it extremely difficult to comprehend that we might not be correct all the time.
In a society filled with so much tension already, it is often better to stray away from concepts of "right" & "wrong". Rebecca Jones shines light on the issues that develop as a result of viewing arguments or debatable topics from a strictly two-sided viewpoint. Jones discusses the problematic aspect of "pro & con arguments", with vivid examples such as Americans' disagreement with/support of "gun control, abortion, or the environment"(64). The perception that only two sides can exist regarding a specific issue ultimately leads to an overestimation, such as that someone wholeheartedly supports a topic or absolutely despises it. Either way, this overestimation alters our viewpoint on individuals, as we begin to see them through a lens that supports or refutes our beliefs. Evidently, the two-sidedness of arguments that is so common today has negative ramifications for both the individuals arguing and the actual argument itself.
In the psychological world, a heavy debate exists regarding the idea of "Nature vs. Nurture". Some individuals believe that our personality is determined by biological factors, such as genes received from our parents (nature). Other individuals, however, assume that it is not our genetics, but our environment that influences the development of such personalities (nurture). The Nature vs Nurture debate often allows for polarization, since the two perspectives contrast one another. This debate, although often based on evidence, can become problematic due to assumptions and overgeneralization that may occur. For example, if someone claims to support the Nature aspect of the debate, one may assume that they believe a person's personality, sexuality, and intelligence are all determined by genetic factors. However, that individual may have actually only supported the idea that our intelligence is determined by genetic factors. With two-sided arguments like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate, we often lose sight of our endgame. Instead of working in unison to uncover the true factors that shape our personality, sexuality, or intelligence, we would rather use our best efforts to explain why the opposing side is wrong. However, by taking the time to examine what the other side has to say, we would learn the truth which is: nature influences nurture, which in turn influences our nature. Therefore, neither side is technically the right or the wrong side, since ideas of both nature and nurture combine to explain life and its aspects.
Overall, in order to solve the ongoing issue of problematic pro/con, right/wrong arguments, we must begin to practice objectivity. Through closely examining all aspects of an issue (all the while ignoring our personal beliefs), we can truly see how and why such ideas form, thus making it easier to accept or POLITELY reject others' ideas. We must begin to do intense research on our own, rather than relying on the media or our peers to provide all of our knowledge. Surprisingly, everything we read on the internet isn't true. Who would've thought?!?! Jones also notes that "an argument can be logical, rational, useful, and even enjoyable"(64), which in turn contributes to the complexity of arguments. Therefore, if we enhance our knowledge, we can indeed find the good argument...see what I did there? Through education & objectivity, the opportunities are endless. I believe that by limiting our bias during times of argument, we will begin to view arguments as an opportunity to learn rather than an opportunity to imitate war.
In the psychological world, a heavy debate exists regarding the idea of "Nature vs. Nurture". Some individuals believe that our personality is determined by biological factors, such as genes received from our parents (nature). Other individuals, however, assume that it is not our genetics, but our environment that influences the development of such personalities (nurture). The Nature vs Nurture debate often allows for polarization, since the two perspectives contrast one another. This debate, although often based on evidence, can become problematic due to assumptions and overgeneralization that may occur. For example, if someone claims to support the Nature aspect of the debate, one may assume that they believe a person's personality, sexuality, and intelligence are all determined by genetic factors. However, that individual may have actually only supported the idea that our intelligence is determined by genetic factors. With two-sided arguments like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate, we often lose sight of our endgame. Instead of working in unison to uncover the true factors that shape our personality, sexuality, or intelligence, we would rather use our best efforts to explain why the opposing side is wrong. However, by taking the time to examine what the other side has to say, we would learn the truth which is: nature influences nurture, which in turn influences our nature. Therefore, neither side is technically the right or the wrong side, since ideas of both nature and nurture combine to explain life and its aspects.
Overall, in order to solve the ongoing issue of problematic pro/con, right/wrong arguments, we must begin to practice objectivity. Through closely examining all aspects of an issue (all the while ignoring our personal beliefs), we can truly see how and why such ideas form, thus making it easier to accept or POLITELY reject others' ideas. We must begin to do intense research on our own, rather than relying on the media or our peers to provide all of our knowledge. Surprisingly, everything we read on the internet isn't true. Who would've thought?!?! Jones also notes that "an argument can be logical, rational, useful, and even enjoyable"(64), which in turn contributes to the complexity of arguments. Therefore, if we enhance our knowledge, we can indeed find the good argument...see what I did there? Through education & objectivity, the opportunities are endless. I believe that by limiting our bias during times of argument, we will begin to view arguments as an opportunity to learn rather than an opportunity to imitate war.
Great post, Taylor. I really like the way you open this up, and I thought your example was intriguing. In our culture, we really do like looking at things as THIS or THAT. Nature versus nurture. (Why can't some aspects of each side be valid in some ways? Are there perhaps some other perspectives that might not be included in this discussion?)
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more about your point on how it's difficult for us to comprehend the idea that we may in fact be wrong or someone is trying to tell us we're wrong. I've had my share of experiences growing up where someone would argue and tell me I'm wrong and I'd end up responding illogically or irrationally due to my initial emotion of shock. In addition, I also feel as though people who refuse to believe they're wrong are those who have succeeded and excelled in school. They probably feel as though they must be right if they got straight A's all the time. Perhaps another contributor to this overall issue of right/wrong arguments is people are just arguing with their emotions rather than a healthy balance of logic, evidence, and emotion.
ReplyDelete